The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with legal procedures, proper document preparation, fair investigation, and the right to a thorough and lawful search and seizure process.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2017, vide which the appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and the order of sentence of even date, vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months.

2. This appeal is taken up in the category of cases, which are listed on Saturdays, as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the accused are in judicial custody and the appellants are being prosecuted by the legal aid counsel.

3. As per the custody certificate dated 03.05.2019, the appellant has already undergone 02 years, 03 months and 22 days of total sentence, out of 10 years R.I. awarded by the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the police party headed by ASI Kirpal Singh had apprehended the appellant and he was found in possession of 1800 ml of intoxicant liquid containing Codeine Phosphate salt, without any licence or permit, in the area of Super Market, Heera Colony Road, Bahadurgarh, Patiala on 25.08.2015. After completion of the investigation, challan for the offence punishable under Section 22 of NDPS Act was presented before the Court. On finding a prima facie case, the trial Court framed the charge, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in support of its evidence, examined PW-1 HC Dharmit Singh, PW-2 HC Sikanderpal Singh, PW-3 ASI Malwinder Singh, PW-4 HC Rajesh Kumar, PW-5 ASI Kirpal Singh, the Investigating Officer, PW-6 ASI Sukhdev Singh and produced on record documents consent memo Ex. P1, recovery memo Ex. P3, ruqa Ex. P6, copy of FIR Ex. PW-6/6, site plan Ex. P7, arrest memo Ex. P4, personal search memo Ex. P5, report under Section 57 of NDPS Act Ex. P8, inventory Ex. P9, remand request Ex. P10, order of learned Magistrate Ex. P11 and report of Chemical Examiner Ex. P12 and thereafter, the Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence against him was put to the appellant, however, the accused denied it as incorrect and pleaded false implication and no recovery has been effected from him. In the defence, the accused did not lead any evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 22 of NDPS Act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per statement of the Investigating Officer/PW-5 ASI Kirpal Singh, the appellant was apprehended on suspicion of carrying some intoxicant liquid and recorded his consent memo Ex. P1, in which the appellant had given his consent that he has faith on the Investigating Officer and the search can be conducted by him. Learned counsel has referred to the consent memo Ex. P1 to argue that it is mentioned that the Investigating Officer ASI Kirpal Singh intended to effect search of the appellant but the appellant also has a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and therefore, it is not proper compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act as clear notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was not given and it was additionally mentioned that Investigating Officer intend to conduct the search of carry bag apart from a right of the appellant that he can get his search conducted by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

7. It is next argued that as per PW-5, after he conducted the search and recovered the alleged contraband, which was 1800 ml intoxicant liquid, two samples of 100 ml each were separated and remaining, on measurement, found to be 1600 ml, the same were sealed and Form No. 29 was prepared at the spot, the case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P3, which was attested by H